Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] Separate IRQ-stacks from 4K-stacks option | From | Lee Revell <> | Date | Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:39:49 -0400 |
| |
On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 16:00, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> wrote: > > > Okay, I'll be the one to ask... what overload of the IPL acronym are > > you using here? I asked google and several jargon files, and they all > > say that IPL (initial program load) is IBMspeak for cold boot. Somehow > > I don't think that's what you mean here. > > i understood it as Interrupt Privilege Levels. The notion of having some > sort of scalar 'limit' - all interrupts with a higher priority than that > will execute, all interrupts with lower priority will block. This is a > fundamentally dodgy concept because in reality interrupt sources are > independent entities so the natural description for of them is a bitmask > (or an array, or whatever), not a level. >
Yeah, I was talking about interrupt priority levels. I have to admit my only exposure to them is a book on Solaris, they are intended as a mechanism to deal with priority inversions. Sounds like a neat trick on paper but they don't seem to be applicable here.
Lee
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |